Professional Documents
Culture Documents
02 2011 077 Croccollo 04
02 2011 077 Croccollo 04
DOI:10.554.5/sv-jme.2011.077
This paper deals with the static structural analysis of an articulated urban bus chassis, carried
out with the Finite Elements Method. The purpose of this work is to simulate and forecast the structural
response of the chassis, in terms of stress, strain and displacement, under several loading and constraining
conditions, which aim at reflecting the actual duty cycle of the bus. A thorough interaction with the customer
company allowed the authors to adequately define the loading scheme and to constrain the structure
properly. Sensitivity analyses about FEM parameters have been run, in order to achieve an adequate
trade off between computational time and results accuracy. Obtained results have been double checked by
employing both solid (3D) and shell (2D) elements for each simulation. Eventually, the customer has been
notified of critical issues and the related suggested improvements.
2011 Journal of Mechanical Engineering. All rights reserved.
Keywords: bus, structure, frame, chassis, case study
0 INTRODUCTION
The vehicle under investigation is an
articulated bus characterized by a length of 18
m, realised by the joining of two chassis (Fig.
1), capable of carrying up to 160 passengers and
with a mass at full load of about 30,000 kg. Urban
buses, as most part of passenger vehicles, are built
around a tubular chassis that bears both the weight
of the vehicle itself and the weight of passengers
and luggage.
Structural Analysis of an Articulated Urban Bus Chassis via FEM: a Methodology Applied to a Case Study
801
Fig. 5. The square-to-square hollow section T-joint specimen tested in [13] and [14]
a)
b)
c)
Fig. 6. Comparison in stress distributions (deformed shape 50x magnification) far from the joint between
beam and column (dashed lines); a) reference geometry [13] and [14] with the welded joint modelled, b)
solid mesh without the weld, c) shell mesh without the weld; mesh size: 1 mm
802
3.1 B-Chassis
At first, lumped masses (represented as
spheres) have been applied to the chassis. In Fig.
7, for instance, 2,950 kg of distributed masses
belonging to coatings and body panels are shown:
each sphere has the same color of its target parts.
Masses related to onboard systems, windows
and doors (1,046 kg) and those belonging to
passengers mass (4,931 kg) have been, instead,
represented in Fig. 8. The 1,500 kg engine mass
has been subdivided into three lumped masses:
each of them has been applied to the relevant
engine mount on the chassis. The B-chassis self
weight is 1,658 kg.
3.1.1 B-Chassis, Gravitational Acceleration
Fixed supports have been applied both to
the rear axle edges and to the articulation device
edges: this type of constraints, since applied to a
Structural Analysis of an Articulated Urban Bus Chassis via FEM: a Methodology Applied to a Case Study
803
F = FZr,B . (1)
This hypothesis considers the rear wheels
subjected to the braking force F, while the front
articulation edges hold up the remaining X-axis
force Rx given by Eq. (2) (Fig. 8a):
Rx = mB-chassis0.75g F .
(2)
Structural Analysis of an Articulated Urban Bus Chassis via FEM: a Methodology Applied to a Case Study
805
a)
b)
Fig. 11. Stress distributions in A (a) and B (b) chassis in most severe (cornering) loading condition
4.2 B-Chassis
Left-cornering loading case (Fig. 11b)
is the most severe condition for the B-chassis
as well, causing wide areas of the tubular beam
shown in Fig. 16a, which appreciably exceed the
equivalent stress limit Sl, as Von-Mises stresses on
such component assume values close to 190 MPa.
Indeed, such a beam had been noticed to be a
critical component for all the loading cases since it
has the highest stress values in the whole structure.
Therefore, the original 3 mm thick beam has been
replaced with a 5 mm thick one, and a new leftcornering simulation has been performed in order
to validate the change. During the cornering
manoeuvres the stress value on the body-side
pillars results of about 140 MPa, as reported in
Fig. 16b, which is now an adequate value: hence,
the stress decrease for the proposed solution is
equal to 26%. Elsewhere, the B-chassis shows
a fair behaviour, since stress and displacement
remain beneath the established limits.
The maximum displacement values are
located on the front left engine support ( = 9
mm) when braking loads are applied (Fig. 13) and
on the rooftop ( = 11 mm) when gravity loads are
applied (Fig. 12). Eventually, during the cornering
to the left (Fig. 14) a peak value of about 27 mm is
reached on the rooftop, which becomes about 33
mm when torsion occurs (Fig. 15). As mentioned
before some images of the deformed structure due
to the different loading cases, are reported in Figs.
12 to15.
Fig. 16. Von-Mises equivalent stress values on the critical beam; a) original beam, b) modified beam
Structural Analysis of an Articulated Urban Bus Chassis via FEM: a Methodology Applied to a Case Study
807
[22]
Genta, G., Morello, L. (2002). The
Automotive Chassis Vol. 1: Components
design. Springer.
[23] Meznar, D., Lazovic, M. (2010). The strength
of the bus structure with the determination
of critical points. Strojniski vestnik Journal
of Mechanical Engineering, vol. 56, p. 544550.
[24]
Lan, F., Chen, J., Lin, J. (2004).
Comparative analysis for bus side
structures and lightweight optimization.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part D Journal of Automobile
Engineering, vol. 218, p. 1067-1075,
DOI:10.1177/095440700421801001.
[25] Kim, M.H., Suh, M.W., Bae, D.H. (2001).
Development of an optimum design
technique for the bus window pillar
member. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part D Journal of
Automobile Engineering, vol. 215, p. 11-20,
DOI:10.1243/0954407011525421.
APPENDIX
Here below the comparison between constraints reactions and applied external loads is reported:
results are subdivided into the four kinds of loading cases, respectively for the A-chassis and B-chassis.
A-chassis
3.2.1 GRAVITY ONLY
CONSTRAINT NAME
LEFT FRONT
RIGHT FRONT
LEFT REAR
RIGHT REAR
TOTAL REACTION
EXTERNAL LOAD
ERROR
3.2.2 BRAKE
CONSTRAINT NAME
LEFT FRONT
RIGHT FRONT
LEFT REAR
RIGHT REAR
TOTAL REACTION
EXTERNAL LOAD
ERROR
3.2.3 CORNERING
CONSTRAINT NAME
LEFT FRONT
RIGHT FRONT
LEFT REAR
RIGHT REAR
TOTAL REACTION
EXTERNAL LOAD
ERROR
3.2.4 TORSION
CONSTRAINT NAME
LEFT FRONT
RIGHT REAR
TOTAL REACTION
EXTERNAL LOAD
ERROR
UNIT
N
N
N
N
N
N
%
UNIT
N
N
N
N
N
N
%
UNIT
N
N
N
N
N
N
%
UNIT
N
N
N
N
%
X
1,554
1,860
11,363
11,018
25,795
25,796
0.004
DIRECTION
Y
-6,554
6,541
-18,517
18,530
0
0
0.000
Z
31,199
28,781
42,098
40,907
142,985
142,987
0.001
X
-32,659
-32,098
0
0
-64,757
-64,764
0.011
DIRECTION
Y
-12,976
12,976
0
0
0
0
0.000
Z
41,133
38,219
41,543
40,850
161,745
161,767
0.014
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
DIRECTION
Y
16,010
30,689
17,343
52,678
116,720
116,723
0.000
Z
11,504
49,680
8123
73,627
142,934
142,937
0.002
X
1,394
24,424
25,818
25,796
0.085
DIRECTION
Y
-3,575
2,387
-1,188
-1,185
0.253
Z
59,909
83,076
142,985
142,987
0.001
B-chassis
3.1.1 GRAVITY ONLY
CONSTRAINT NAME
UNIT
REAR AXLE
ARTICULATION
N
N
X
-25,796
25,796
TOTAL REACTION
EXTERNAL LOAD
ERROR
3.1.2 BRAKE
CONSTRAINT NAME
N
N
%
0
0
0.000
REAR AXLE
ARTICULATION
N
N
X
0
-31,726
TOTAL REACTION
EXTERNAL LOAD
ERROR
3.1.3 CORNERING
CONSTRAINT NAME
N
N
%
-31,726
-31,735
0.028
DIRECTION
Y
Z
103
84,308
-103
34,193
0
118,501
0
118,513
0.000
0.010
TOTAL REACTION
EXTERNAL LOAD
ERROR
3.1.4 TORSION
CONSTRAINT NAME
N
N
N
N
N
%
X
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
DIRECTION
Y
Z
65,934
81,846
5,542
21,292
19,155
15,363
90,631
118,501
90,638
118,513
0.008
0.010
REAR AXLE
ARTICULATION
TOTAL REACTION
EXTERNAL LOAD
ERROR
N
N
N
N
%
X
-14,424
14,424
0
0
0.000
DIRECTION
Y
Z
5,516
102,050
-5,516
16,451
0
118,501
0
118,513
0.000
0.010
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
DIRECTION
Y
Z
1,185
103,090
-1,185
15,413
0
118,503
0
118,513
0.000
0.008
Structural Analysis of an Articulated Urban Bus Chassis via FEM: a Methodology Applied to a Case Study
809